When our nation permitted slavery, it seemed like a moderate thing, I suspect. When our nation denied women their rights, the Elizabeth Cady Stantons were the extremists. Now, you might argue that those weren’t actual democracies, because African-Americans and Women were denied the right to vote, but how do you account for things like segregation, and Japanese interment, and torture, and wiretapping, and (I suspect) the denial of gay marriage, and maybe, even, our treatment of animals, or the fact that we eat them.
Jeff correctly points out that the majority often gets things wrong. And the fewer people who are able to vote, the worse it’s likely to be. But in these cases, Democracy did correctly identify the will of the majority (of voters). This doesn’t mean it’s right—just that the majority thinks it’s right. Or at least justified. And this does not seem like a bad system to me. At the very least, it has the possibility of changing things when people better understood how society should work.
Because right now, if Jeff Miller or I were able to set all the rules, one of us would be extremely unhappy. Jeff would eliminate the minimum wage. I would probably raise it. We need some way to determine who is right.
But Democracy is not just about compromise. It is also about distilling value and information. As Jeff correctly points out, the general consensus of thought has a pretty poo r track record. But does it have a better track record than individuals? Democracy will more likely arrive at a better overall solution than even a carefully selected individual. We’re not going to have a government that makes the right decision all the time. My claim is that Democracy is the best way to get better government. A consensus emerges and becomes policy. Most likely, it’s a good idea.
Many of the terrible things placed at the feet of Democracy predate Democracy. As Democracy became more Democratic, those things diminished. Can you look back and name a really bad policy we can attribute primarily to consensus
